Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040004802026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./82/2026 Nera Gumro and Anr Son of Shri Singkam Gumro, a resident of Village Nunpu, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Miss Nabam Jayer Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Nabam Karbia a permanent resident of Village Dipik PO and PS Seijosa Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Rama, T Tada,Teshi Aaku,N Kuma,N Kanu,P Tatam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. N. Rama, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Page No.# 2/7 Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying for quashing of FIR dated 11.09.2022 registered as Itanagar WPS Case No. 113/2022, GR Case No. 765/2022 under Section 354A/509 I.P.C. jointly filed by the alleged accused person, informant/victim in connection to Itanagar WPS Case no. 113/2022, GR case no. 765/2022 under Section 354/509 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.09.2022, a written FIR was lodged by petitioner No. 2, namely, Miss Nabam Jayer against one Shri Nera Gumro, who happens to be her brother-in-law. It was alleged that her parents had requested the petitioner No. 1 to drop her at Doimukh. Accordingly, on 02.09.2022, while they were returning towards Doimukh via Hollongi, Itanagar, petitioner No. 1 took petitioner No. 2 to Classic Bar, 6th Kilo, Itanagar, and the petitioner no. 1 insisted her to consume alcohol. Though she initially refused, but she consumed a bottle of Breezer, and thereafter, about 3:15 a.m. in the morning, they started proceeding towards Doimukh from Itanagar. It was alleged that during the journey, petitioner No. 1 tried to molest petitioner No. 2 by kissing her and putting his hand on her private parts. When petitioner No. 2 resisted and stated that she would raise an alarm, petitioner No. 1 stopped such activities and thereafter, dropped her at her home. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Itanagar WPS Case No. 113/2022 under the aforementioned sections. 5. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No. 132/2022 dated 22.11.2022 before the learned CJM, Page No.# 3/7 Yupia, Papum Pare. It is submitted that the case is presently pending for consideration of charge. 6. The Trial Court Record (TCR) in the instant case was called for and the scanned copy of the TCR has been received. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioner No. 1, who is the accused, and petitioner No. 2, who is the victim, are, in fact, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively. He submits that since they are related, the petitioner no. 1 was requested by the parents of the petitioner no. 2 to drop her at their home in Doimukh, as she was travelling from Seijosa. He submits that during their journey from Seijosa to Doimukh, in between, they stopped for some time in Itanagar, and after entering into a bar, along with other friends accompanying them, the petitioner no. 1 had consumed some alcohol. Thereafter, they started for Doimukh, and during such journey, the petitioner no. 1 had playfully requested the petitioner no. 2 to marry her, stating that in the customary tradition of Nyishi tribe, two-three marriages are allowed. He submits that as the petitioner no. 2 had also consumed certain portion of alcohol, she went off to sleep and probably she could not realize what had happened. And due to such misunderstanding, though nothing offensive had happened during such journey, the petitioner no. 2 had filed the FIR before the police. He submits that after filing of the FIR, the petitioner no. 2 realized her mistake, and after discussion with the family members of both the petitioner no. 1 and herself, she has decided to settle the issue amicably by filing a necessary application before the competent court. He submits that in terms of the Page No.# 4/7 aforesaid understanding, the petitioner no. 1 and 2 has executed a Deed of Settlement dated 13.09.2022. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that a Deed of Settlement dated 13.09.2022 was executed between the parties, whereby the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them in the presence of their respective family members. He submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2, being close relatives, they have decided to put an end to the dispute. In view of the aforesaid settlement, he submits that since the dispute between the parties has already been amicably settled and the parties are living peacefully, the instant application may be allowed by quashing the FIR as well as the proceeding pending before the learned JFMC, Yupia. 9. Ms. T. Jini. learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh submits that the matter relates to an offence for punishment of one year and since the parties have amicably settled the matter, she does not have any objection if the instant petition is allowed. 10. Taking into account the fact that the parties have already settled the matter amicably by executing a Deed of Settlement and that the parties are relatives and have been living together peacefully thereafter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioners deserves to be allowed. Also taking into account of the fact that petitioner No. 2 has stated in the Deed of Settlement that nothing as alleged in the FIR had occurred between the two during that night. This Court is of the opinion that the instant petition can be disposed of by allowing the prayer of the petitioners. Page No.# 5/7 11. Accordingly, considering that the offence alleged to have been committed is not a major offence or a heinous crime having a serious impact on the society, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, can be invoked, as the chances of conviction are far too bleak and remote and the continuance of such proceedings in the present case would be futile and an abuse of the process of law. 12. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings in non- compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. The paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, being relevant, is extracted herein below:- “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the Page No.# 6/7 special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the Page No.# 7/7 High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 13. Having regard to the facts and considering that the dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 is primarily of private nature and as stated above, the parties have already come to a mutual agreement by settling their whole differences by executing a Deed of Settlement and also taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case is one where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS could be invoked. Consequently, FIR dated 11.09.2022 registered as Itanagar WPS Case No. 113/2022, GR Case No. 765/2022 under Section 354A/509 I.P.C. along with the proceeding before the JMFC, Yupia is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal petition stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Digitally signed by HAGE MEENA Date: 2026.09.16 09:19:49 +05'30'